Friday, October 22, 2010
6:45 AM. Guys, I’ve had an insight in the past few days. I have known and not known, all this time, haven’t I? I have a robot that says, “don’t allow yourself to believe in all this, or any of it, lest you become a gulled flake.” But that isn’t what I want. I want to experience, and assimilate, and build from there. I don’t want to reject, and I don’t want to accept, blindly in either case. So how do I do this?
You don’t customarily weigh input that you have come to accept as normal – what you see, what you hear, latterly what you feel (though there was a time when you didn’t feel, or allow yourself to feel, or know how to feel). You can’t be continuously distrusting input and at the same time easily and spontaneously be accepting and using that input. That is at most a transitional situation.
And how do I avoid Psychic’s Disease?
Pre-program it. Use your control panel.
That seems a bit risky, depending on that. Wouldn’t any psychic tend to rely on just that, and doesn’t the result tend to come to the same thing? We’re still back to “I feel it, therefore it’s true.”
This is a valid concern for you and for everyone, so we’ll address it (with due regard for the irony involved in your receiving psychic validation of the need for caution in obtaining psychic validation).
Well, don’t think the irony is lost on me!
No, we understand, of course.
Suppose we define two polar-opposite positions. One is totally open to input, the other totally closed to it. These two extremes may in fact consist of different axes. For instance, one may be closed or open to the idea of psychic input, or to the reality of it, or to the validity of it.
Thus, six positions, just to begin.
1……….…. Idea…………… 2
3…………. reality……..…… 4
5………… validity…………. 6
Position two maintains that it can’t ever happen; position four, that it happens but isn’t happening to the person involved; position six, that it is happening but doesn’t mean anything, or at least doesn’t mean anything non-pathological.
Conversely, position one says it is a part of life; three says it is occurring in a given instance; five says whatever is received is valid.
These are subtly and often not so subtly different positions.
Now, consider that if there are six extremes, there are more than six intermediate positions. We won’t bother to spell them out, but even two intermediate positions along three axes would provide an additional 12 positions possible.
So the proper attitude would be – ?
The proper attitude for what you want, at this time in your life, is not a universal, of course.
Try this on and if it fits comfortably, adopt it. If not, modify it to fit comfortably.
I do like your attitude (though I suppose it figures that I would, or I would connect to others with a different attitude, wouldn’t I?) in that it doesn’t try to wrest control from me.
Just the opposite, in fact. We are trying to assist you to take ever greater control of your life by opening you up to greater spaces internally. (“Greater spaces internally” is a metaphor, naturally, which ought to be obvious but perhaps can bear repeating.)
Why don’t you try this? Others should find their own preferred positions. (One size definitely does not fit all.) Be open to any idea of possible psychic reality. Don’t close the door on any possibility – which means, don’t close the door on any possibility. Did you hear that?
Yes. Refusing to admit a possibility is closing the door against it. It is pre-defining it out of effective existence for me.
Very common. Universal, in fact, because you can only deal with a subset of reality. Some people’s subsets are larger than others, and few people’s subsets entirely overlap, though they may not and usually do not realize it, but nobody can encompass reality. The being that could is the conceptualization you consider God. Not one of the gods, either, but the only being that could encompass everything. Obviously – is it obvious? – only one being can encompass all of reality, and all other beings must be a subset of that overarching being.
Interesting side trip into theology.
Not theology at all; cosmology and very practical psychology. We are merely telling you that neither you nor we nor anything nor anybody can see and know and experience and encompass all things except, at most, one all-transcendent being. You can argue whether an all-transcendent being exists, but you can’t argue about the fact that you aren’t it! And, neither are we. So, we exist perceiving subsets of reality, defining things into or out of existence.
So. You could choose to admit into your subset of reality the idea that any possible perception or experience may exist. This would be a position of radical openness to the idea of psychic input. You would still have to decide (if only by default) your position on the reality and the validity of such input. If you define yourself to be radically open to real and valid experience, having defined yourself as radically open to the idea of it all, you are going to have a very different life henceforth.
And I suppose the fear of the new defines our degree of openness or closed-ness.
Not only fear, though this is a big one. There are other things in life that may be important. Psychic exploration is only one path of many.
Should I think about all this, or just choose? Or, indeed, have I already chosen long ago?
Yes but no. Yes, you chose when your internal makeup was decided, before you were born. No, you choose as you go along. You know the situation by now. Free choice within previously drawn limits.
Yes. Well, my druthers are, absolutely open ideas of what is possible, which has not been the case to now. Openness to experience as much as I can assimilate, with more being assimilated as I assimilate more previously, provided it is real and valid. No interest in exploring fantasy or fears or delusions.
Well, as Jean-Luc Picard would say, “make it so.”
Thank you. We’ll see if the ride changes.